\begin{table}[htbp!] \centering \footnotesize \begin{threeparttable} \caption{Comparison of specific nudge adoption and broad adoption} \begin{tabular} {l c c c} \toprule & Nudge adoption & Broad adoption & Difference \\ Dep. var.: Adoption (0/1, OLS) & (1) & (2) & (3) \\ \hline 
Max $ t\geq1.96$ & -0.03 & 0.26 & -0.28 \\
& (0.08) & (0.11) & (0.15) \\
Max treatment effect (10pp.) & 0.10 & -0.13 & 0.23 \\
& (0.07) & (0.08) & (0.12) \\
City staff retained & 0.07 & 0.09 & -0.02 \\
& (0.08) & (0.08) & (0.11) \\
Above-median city population & 0.06 & -0.23 & 0.28 \\
& (0.08) & (0.13) & (0.16) \\
What Works Cities certified & 0.14 & 0.12 & 0.02 \\
& (0.11) & (0.10) & (0.17) \\
Communication pre-existed & 0.52 & -0.08 & 0.61 \\
& (0.13) & (0.09) & (0.18) \\ \multicolumn{4}{l}{\textit{Mechanism}} \\
\hspace{1em}Simplification \& information & 0.03 & -0.00 & 0.03 \\
& (0.10) & (0.08) & (0.14) \\
\hspace{1em}Personal motivation & -0.12 & 0.00 & -0.12 \\
& (0.12) & (0.10) & (0.16) \\
\hspace{1em}Social cues & -0.08 & 0.14 & -0.22 \\
& (0.08) & (0.10) & (0.15) \\
Constant & 0.05 & 0.07 & -0.02 \\
& (0.15) & (0.12) & (0.20) \\ \hline
Average adoption rate & 0.27 & 0.22 & \\
Number of trials & 73 & 73 & \\
Number of cities & 30 & 30 & \\
$ R^2$ & 0.38 & 0.23 & \\
\bottomrule \end{tabular} \label{tab:reg_broad} \begin{tablenotes} \scriptsize \item Standard errors clustered by city are shown in parentheses. In Column 1, the dependent variable is the same binary indicator from Table 2 for whether the city adopted the specific nudge in the trial. Column 1 replicates the baseline specification of Column 4 in Table 2. In Column 2, the dependent variable is a binary indicator for whether the city broadly adopted a similar nudge or the method of experimentation in other contexts. \end{tablenotes} \end{threeparttable} \end{table}
